National Organization For Women endorses Obama/Biden

Not to sound sexist (because I am not), but I am happy to see/hear this happening, as I was getting more disgusted than I already was with people starting to support Palin just on the mere fact that she is a woman. NOW puts it really into perspective, and I'm glad to see that (some) women are looking more into the issues at hand rather than the gender/image being shown.

Enjoy and discuss.

Quote

National Organization For Women Endorses Obama

Morning Edition, September 16, 2008 · Rarely does the National Organization For Women endorse a presidential candidate. On Tuesday, the group announced it is endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Kim Gandy, president of NOW, talks with Renee Montagne about why the organization is endorsing Obama.

As a long-time member of NOW, there was no question that this was happening. This election is too important and the differences between the two main tickets too stark to do anything else.

I'm glad it's getting press, though.

Click to expand...

This is good to know. I have a (stubborn?) friend who is voting Red because she's always voted that way, and because a woman (Palin) is there, and doesn't realize that Palin doesn't care about instances of rape/incest. It's erupted into many an argument with her family, and it just astounds me that some women were thinking that because Palin is there, that she'll stand up for women, even if their views don't equal Palin's.

I am all for women's rights and equality, but I'm just glad that women are looking into the issues at hand, than just voting because a woman is there.

for some reason im guessing that doesnt take into account what the persons actual job is. Of course some people in his campaign are higher up than others hence higher wages. But this mentions non of that does it?

for some reason im guessing that doesnt take into account what the persons actual job is. Of course some people in his campaign are higher up than others hence higher wages. But this mentions non of that does it?

Click to expand...

Much like the same "wage gap" myth that's trotted out takes the average of all male salaries versus the average of all female salaries and comes out with some imaginary discrepancy. Guess who is trying to get mileage out of this?

Obama's campaign website said:

Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Click to expand...

If this is the standard to which he is adhering, he's not doing overmuch to remedy it in his own house.

Much like the same "wage gap" myth that's trotted out takes the average of all male salaries versus the average of all female salaries and comes out with some imaginary discrepancy. Guess who is trying to get mileage out of this?

If this is the standard to which he is adhering, he's not doing overmuch to remedy it in his own house.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the "wage gap" is normally discussed without consideration of the type of job -- if you assume that women, without barriers, are as capable as men, you should be able to compare dollar for dollar.

BUT you need to look at the information posted -- if I read a progressive or liberal site, I look at their links and don't just assume their analysis to be correct.

1. Legistorm, where these conservative blogs got their data, and who the blogs are crediting with the analysis, say that it is NOT their analysis.

2. These blogs had financial data from Legistorm for several fiscal years, and took the data for TWO MONTHS in 2008, extrapolated to six months, then doubled to get a year's salary. What kind of playing with numbers is that, especially considering the fact that Legistorm, where they got the info., specifically says "Congressional staff salaries shown are the amount paid in the period shown. They are not annual salaries. Because bonuses may be included here and other payments may not be (most notably with aides working for multiple offices or for a political campaign committee), please use caution in extrapolating annual salaries from the figures shown here. "

I agree with you that the "wage gap" is normally discussed without consideration of the type of job -- if you assume that women, without barriers, are as capable as men, you should be able to compare dollar for dollar.

BUT you need to look at the information posted -- if I read a progressive or liberal site, I look at their links and don't just assume their analysis to be correct.

1. Legistorm, where these conservative blogs got their data, and who the blogs are crediting with the analysis, say that it is NOT their analysis.

2. These blogs had financial data from Legistorm for several fiscal years, and took the data for TWO MONTHS in 2008, extrapolated to six months, then doubled to get a year's salary. What kind of playing with numbers is that, especially considering the fact that Legistorm, where they got the info., specifically says "Congressional staff salaries shown are the amount paid in the period shown. They are not annual salaries. Because bonuses may be included here and other payments may not be (most notably with aides working for multiple offices or for a political campaign committee), please use caution in extrapolating annual salaries from the figures shown here. "

I have no idea if the overall allegation is correct, but the figures they used and the analysis of the figures are obviously faulty.

Click to expand...

OK apparently you're missing my point. Radical groups like NOW like to trot out the "woman are only paid 77¢ for every dollar a man makes" (or however much it is this week) as part of furthering their agenda. The way that they arrive at this figure is pure bunk. Using the same bunk methodology, it can be "shown" that Obama only pays his female staffers 83¢ for every dollar he pays his male staffers, and ironically, they're endorsing him. That's what I find utterly hilarious.

I'm still trying to figure out why any of this is newsworthy - with that sellout Biden on the ticket, who else were they going to endorse? It's like the KKK making an announcement that they were endorsing David Duke.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.